Maxell, Ltd. v. CORETRONIC CORP.
5:24-cv-00088
| E.D. Tex. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Maxell, Ltd. sued Coretronic Corp. and Optoma Corp. ("Defendants") in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of claims from seven U.S. patents related to projection and video display technologies.
- The case involves a Markman hearing on the construction of eight disputed claim terms/phrases drawn from four patents: 7,159,988 (’988), 8,593,580 (’580), 9,547,226 (’226), and 9,565,388 (’388).
- The main disputes concern whether certain terms are governed by means-plus-function analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (pre-AIA), whether claims are indefinite, and what the proper plain and ordinary meanings are.
- The court considered the parties' briefs, argument, expert declarations, and intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, such as the specification, prior art, and prosecution history.
- The outcome sets the framework for future infringement and invalidity arguments by clarifying the scope of the claim terms in dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "projection optical unit" is means-plus-function | Term connotes structure; not §112¶6 | "Unit" is nonce; term is means-plus-function | Not means-plus-function; plain and ordinary meaning |
| "Light separation optic system" meaning | Connotes structure; plain meaning | "System" is nonce; means-plus-function with mirrors | Not means-plus-function; plain and ordinary meaning |
| "Light modulation means"—function and structure | Function: modulate R, G, B lights; structure includes liquid crystal or DMD panels | Function: change intensity of each color; needs three panels | §112¶6 applies; function as stated; structure can be singular panel |
| "Light flux capturing means"—function and structure | Captures light flux; structure can be lens/mirror | Direct light; structure is reflection surface | Agreed: directs light; structure is reflection surface |
| Whether terms in ’226 patent are indefinite | Terms are definite; meaning clear from context | Terms are indefinite; language is nonsensical | Terms are definite; adopted plaintiff's construction |
| "Retinex processing unit" and "video composing unit"—means-plus | Sufficient structure; plain meaning | Means-plus-function; indefinite—no disclosed structure | Not means-plus-function; plain and ordinary meaning |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (defining approach for claim construction based on ordinary and customary meaning)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (holding claim construction is a matter of law for the court)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) (standard for definiteness: must inform with reasonable certainty)
- Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (means-plus-function presumption and guidance for claim construction)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (persons of ordinary skill are creative, not automatons)
- Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (structural sufficiency for computer-related claims)
- Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claims not limited to single embodiment unless clear intention expressed)